Re: New draft: css3-selectors

Daniel: Below are some minor clarification nits that should be made to the
text of the selectors module.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, fantasai wrote:
>
> Here's a selector:  form[method="get"]
> Does it match <form action="script.cgi">?

No.


> I can conclude from the first paragraph in 6.3.4 that it does.
>
>   "W3C selectors should be implemented so that they work
>    even if the default values are not included in the
>    document tree"

Good catch. I would hazard a guess that Daniel meant to use "used so" or
"written such" not "implemented so". This is a hint to stylesheet authors,
not UA authors.


> Yet the example presented below that sentence implies that it doesn't!
>
>   "If the selectors represent an EXAMPLE element when the
>    value of the attribute is explicitely set:
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>      EXAMPLE[notation=decimal]
>      EXAMPLE[notation=octal]
>
>    then to represent the case where this attribute is set
>    by default, and not explicitly, the following selector
>    might be used:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>      EXAMPLE
>   "
>
> *and* the last example implies that the following selector
>
>   form
>
> does not match <form action="script.cgi" method="post">--
> which contradicts CSS1.

This is a now-wrong example that has been carried through from CSS2, where
it was the only way to achieve the desired result.

The selector should now be:

   EXAMPLE:not([notation])

...if you want to select an EXAMPLE element that does not have the
notation attribute set explicitly.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                     )\     _. - ._.)       fL
Netscape, Standards Compliance QA              /. `- '  (  `--'
+1 650 937 6593                                `- , ) -  > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________  (.' \) (.' -' __________

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2001 18:37:11 UTC